Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
86 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Explanation |
Describing how to do something Describing how something works Interpreting the meaning of something Teleological-explanation (describing purpose of a thing) Theoretical explanation (What causes this event or phenomenon |
|
|
Theoretical explanation |
Why something is the way it is Why something exists Why something happened |
|
|
Abduction |
Forming new beliefs, we often make inferences to the best explanation 1. Phenomenon P is true 2. E ist he best- most likely, most plausible - explanation of the existence of p 3. Therefore, it is likely that E is true |
|
|
Purpose of explanation |
Gives us a deeper understanding of the world Give us a more comprehensive view of the world Lead us to more true beliefs and theories Also practical inferences to the best explanation are crucial to being able to get along in the world |
|
|
Criteria of adequacy |
used to rank possible explanations by degree of plausibility Consistency Testability Fruitfulness Scope Simplicity Conservatism |
|
|
Consistency |
Internal consistency - The theory is free of contraction External consistency - The theory is consistent with all the facts or data which have to be explained |
|
|
Testability |
A theory must be testable It must predict something that can be determined Theories cannot be tested in isolation from other theories or information Might not be testable in practice, but testable in principle |
|
|
Fruitfulness |
predicting new phenomena not previously known or leads to other explanations or hypotheses which are found to be empirically successful |
|
|
Explanatory scope |
The more phenomena a theory expains, the more plausible it is. AKA. Explanatory power |
|
|
Simplicity |
Occams Razor Other things being equal, the best explanation is the one that is simplest The one that makes the fewest assumptions |
|
|
Conservatism |
Ceterus paribus, a theory should agree with well confirmed background belief and theory |
|
|
Roswell Conspiracy |
Report of crash in 1947 near Roswell New Mexico Many people claim it was an alien spacecraft Government says it was a weather balloon |
|
|
JFK assasination |
Official explanation - a lone gunman (lee harvey Oswald) shot kennedy on his own conspiracy theories - CIA, mafia, Fidel castro, Lynden Johnson |
|
|
9/11 |
how could a handful of terrorists have brought down the world trade center US gov't must have done it to provide pretext to invade iraq and afghanistan to gain control of oil reserves in that part of the world |
|
|
course issues with conspiracy theories |
Mainstream science, philosophy and society reject them as false Highly implausible, belief in the theories is seen as irrational and a failure of good critical thinking Is the rejection justified? What makes them so implausible? |
|
|
Conspiracy theory course definition |
purport to explain an event or phenomenon as the result of a secret plot - carried out usually by powerful people or organizations - who are trying to deceive the public about the event's real cause, - even though the even may already have been explained adequately in some other way - or there is reason to believe that it could be explained in some other way |
|
|
Problems with conspiracy theories |
1. They violate the simplicity criterion for explanations 2. They rest on factual mistakes, inadequate information 3. They are untestable 4. They shift the burden of proof 5. Failure to cohere with background info 6. They involve a kind of internal internal incoherence |
|
|
Things that encourage conspiracy theories |
Paternicity - tendency to see patterns in randomness Agenticity - assumption the events must be planned by intelligent beings Various cognitive biases Assumption that major events must have major, or important, causes Underrating the likelihood of coincidences |
|
|
Psychological factors behind C.T |
Feelings of insecurity, not being in control Feelings of alienation from society Tendency to be distrustful, paranoia Lack of education, lack of background information, clear , rigorous thinking Being intellectually careless, jumping to conclusions, not looking at all the facts, Rebellion, desire to be different or to reject authority |
|
|
Presuppositions of science |
Realism- there is some way that nature is, that is independent from our beliefs about it Our present understanding is incomplete Science is empirical It is possible to arrive at more accurate theories through investigation and inquiry Science is progressive - we are arriving at more accurate theories of nature |
|
|
Scientific realism |
Science is developing more and more accurate theories of nature on the basis of reliable forms of evidence |
|
|
Pseudoscience |
Imitation science, claims to have the same status and deserves the same respect, but falls short of this goal does not employ reliable, scientific methods of inquiry |
|
|
Goal of the scientific method |
minimize the effect of the following in inquiry: Bias Self-interest of scientists other egocentric factors misleading effect of tradition social practives and prejudices |
|
|
hypothetico-deductive method (H-D) |
1. Identify the problem to be addressed or investigated 2. Review scientific literature on the topic, gather relevant data 3. Formulate or construct hypotheses to explain the phenomena ovserved 4. Test the hypotheses by deducing predictions and checking their thruth by ovservation/experiment 5. Analyze results of the tests, draw conclusions |
|
|
Identifying the problem |
Often a scientific investigation is motivated by as pecific problem, puzzle, or question |
|
|
Review of literature, gather data |
Using whatever background information may be available about the problem under study, gather as much relevant data or information as possible. |
|
|
Formulate hypothesis |
Try to identify or construct plausible hypotheses to explain the phenomena ovserved |
|
|
Testing the hypotheses |
Deduce predictions from it - If A is true then given certain conditions, B will be observed Conduct that experiment Testing must be rigorous and repeated/repeatable |
|
|
Drawing conclusions |
Determine whether or not the hypothesis is true depending on the successfulness of the prediction |
|
|
Construct theories |
This is the process of developing new theories or hypotheses that have some plausibility |
|
|
Test theories |
This is the process of testing these hypotheses to determine which are true |
|
|
Dr. Semmelweis The problemL |
in the maternity ward of a Vienna hospital in the 140s it was found that the death rate from childbed fever was much higher in the 1st division of the ward than in the 2nd division Dr. Semmelweis wanted to know hy |
|
|
Dr. Semmelweis's hypotheses |
Atmosopheric influence (myastma) the accepted theory Caused by overcrowding in the 1st division in one division the women were delivered on their backs, in the other on their sides The "death priest" went through the one division but not the other In one division the women were attended by interns, in the other by midwives |
|
|
Dr. Semmelweis's discovery |
After a one of his colleagues cut his finger in the autopsy room and quickly came down with the illness, dr. semmelweis hypothesised that the interns who came directly from the autopsy room with only superficially washing their hands were the reason for the high death toll |
|
|
Semmelweis's tests |
If the interns washed their hands in a solution of chlorinated lime before attending the women in the 1st division, then the death rate from childbed fever would be redued to a level comparable to that of the 2nd division This prediction was dramatically confirmed as the death toll was reduced below that of the 2nd division |
|
|
Clinical Trials in medicine |
1. Experimental group - receive therapy D 2. Control group - are given a placebo Single-blind: patients don't know which group they are in but their doctors do. Double-blind: neither patients nor their doctors know which group they are in |
|
|
Pseudoscience |
Refers to the "subjects" or "fields" or theories and beliefs, that are put forward as science but which are actually mere imitations of science |
|
|
Fallacies of evidence in pseudocience |
pseudoscientists claim to have evidence for their theories, but their grasp of the nature of evidence is confused and inadequate 1. Failure to test hypotheses 2. selective evidence 3. Vague predictions 4. self-fulfulling prophecy 5. anecdotal evidence 6. red herrings 7. appeal to tradition 8. Appeal to ignorance 9. Saving theories by adhoc revisions 10. Failure to see that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence |
|
|
Failure to test |
Often fail to test theories at all DO not emply carefully controlled experiments |
|
|
Selective Evidence |
A theory or hypothesis may appear successful if we only note the true predictions and avoid false predictions |
|
|
Vague predictions |
If the predicitions derived from a theory are vague, they will not make it likely that the theory is true |
|
|
Placebo effect |
The belief that you're getting treatment is what helps to make you fell better |
|
|
Anecdotal evidence |
This fallacy involves using particular examples, often from one's own personal experience to support a general claim or theory This is why experiments must be repeatable and repeated |
|
|
Common red herrings |
I'm entitled to my opinion that... I'm offended by your suggestion that... Science can't explain everything... Science can get things wrong - it's not infallible |
|
|
Arguing from ignorance |
The fact that science has not disproved a thing does not make it true |
|
|
Saving theories by ad hoc assumptions |
Ab assumption that is added to a theory solely to save a theory from refutation without further evidence or support for the assumption |
|
|
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence |
When a claim conflicts strongly with background belief or accepted comon knowledge, as claims made in pseudoscience often do itis reasonabel to insist on having strong evidence for it before we accept it as true |
|
|
The forer affect |
people have atendency to accept a vague and general personality description as uniquely applicable to themselves without realizeing that the same description could be applied to just about anyone |
|
|
Differences between Science and pseudoscience |
Pseudosciences are not progressive - no slow and steady systematic development of a body of knowledge in the field Pseudoscience is not based upon and does not incorporate, repeatable tests. pseudosciences look only for confirming evidence. They do'nt try to refute their theories by rigorous testing, a feature of science emphasized by Karl Popper Connected with the previous point pseudoscience does not obtain positive test results in good positive tests Pseudoscience is often just factually incorrect Pseudoscience does not appreciate the need to explain how its theories could be true in its explanations pseudoscience tends to rely upon particular events or scenarios Pseudoscience is often "infected" by magin in the professional sense of performing tricks and illusions Pseudoscience often commits common fallacies of reasoning - ad hominem, appeal to emotion, to authority, appeals to conspiracy theories |
|
|
Popularity of pseudosciences |
Much scientific theory is too far removed from common sense Sciences is too hard to grasp yet people still want to have things explained People are too gullible to realize they are being exploited by pseudo scientists out for profit People fail to grasp the need form or importance of, evidence - they see beliefs as being like a style of music or clothing Pseudoscientific "memes", ideas, just win out in the competition with scientific memes |
|
|
Deductive Reasonging |
Premises are meant to logicaly entail the conclusio |
|
|
Induvtive reasoning |
Premises are meant only to make the conclusion probable |
|
|
Types of indcutive arguments |
1. Enumerative induction 2. Statistical syllogism 3. Arguments from analogy 4. Causal arguments 5. Inference to the best explanation |
|
|
Enumerative induction |
1. X is A and X is B 2. Y is A and Y is B 3. no A's that are not B have been observed 4. therefore all A's are B |
|
|
Target group or poulation |
refers to the group which the induction is about |
|
|
Sample |
refers to the instances of the group that have been observed |
|
|
Relevant property |
The property we are projecting, or generalizing, from the sample to the target group |
|
|
Common problems for ennumerative induction |
Sample size is too small Sample is not representative Opinion polls- poorly formulated questions' clueless respondents The target goup is not very homogeneous regarding the property being project |
|
|
Bad opinion polls (special type of ennumerative induction) |
Bad questions - leading loaded unclear asking one question at at ime failure to provide an opt-out for the question inadequate unbalanced scales double barreled questions technical language/use of jargon |
|
|
Good questions to ask about a poll |
who did the poll? why was the poll done? who paid for it? when was it done? what is the sampling error? how many people were qquestioned? how were respondents selected? what areas were they selected form? what was the order of the questions? how were the interviews conducted? how was it decided what questions to ask? |
|
|
Statistical syllogisms |
sometimes we have good, but incomplete knowledge of some group of people or things. Based on that we reach a conclusion about some member of a group 1. Most As are Bs 2. X is an A 3. Therefore, X is a B if proportions of As that are B is 100% then the argument is deductive |
|
|
important aspects of statistical syllogism |
The individual being examined the group to which that individual is said to belong the characteristic being attributed The proportion of the group said to have that characteristics |
|
|
The strength of these arguments depends on |
how accurate the generalization is taht we begin from The strength of the generalization Whether the individual in question is typical of the group |
|
|
Arguments from analogy |
1. A is similar to b in possessing features 1,2,3 2. A also possesses some additional feature N 3. Therefore, B also possesses feature N |
|
|
Components of AFA |
1. The subject - what the argument is trying to establish a conclusion about: metaphorical subject 2. The analogue - the thing the subject is being compared to: metaphorical predicate 3. The similarities 4. The target property |
|
|
Evaluating analogical arguments |
Number of similarities between subject and analogue Relevance of the similarities Number of dissimilarities between subject and analogue Relevance of the dissimilarities Number of instances compared Diversity of cases |
|
|
Types of inductive arguments |
1. Enumerative induction 2. Statistical syllogism 3. arguments from analogy or comparison 4. causal arguments 5. inference to the best explanation |
|
|
Causal arguments |
These are arguments which are intended to establish taht one thing or event is the cause of another causal relations cannot be directly observed Sometimes means a sufficient condition for its effect to occur sometimes means that it is necessary for it to occur |
|
|
Common mistakes in causal reasoning |
1. Post hoc sometimes called false cause 2. conffusing correlation with causation 3. ignoring a common cause 4. confusing or reversing cause and effect 5. complex cause or incomplete case fallacy 6. rejecting coincidence 7. assuming causal determinism 8. the gambler's fallacy |
|
|
Post hoc fallacy |
inferring that A is teh cause of B just because A is followed by B |
|
|
Confusing correlation with causation |
Two things are found to occur together, but we all know that this doesn't mean the one has to be the cause of the other |
|
|
Overlooking the possiblity of a common cause |
Third condition that is the common cause of both |
|
|
Reversing cause and effect |
When two events A and B are correlated we may assume that A is the cause of B, but it is a possiblity that B is the cause of A |
|
|
Complex (or incomplete) cause |
The mistake of assuming that an event must be caused by a single factor Oversimplifying the cause of an event |
|
|
Rejecting coincidence |
Sometimes the occurrence of two things together may simply be coincidental |
|
|
Assuming causal determinism |
Assuming that if one type of event is the cause of another it must causaly necessitate it . |
|
|
Gamblers fallacy |
Assuming that luck is a force in the world and that it must balance out eventually. when it actually has no change on the probabilities of an event |
|
|
Mills methods |
The method of difference The method of agreement The joint method of agreement and difference The method of concomitant cariation |
|
|
Method of difference |
Case 1: A, B, C, D are present and event e Case 2: A, B, C are present and e does not occur The only difference is D therefore D is probably the cause of e |
|
|
Method of agreement |
Case1: A, B, C, D are present and event e occurs Case2: D, E, F, G are present and event e occurs D is the only thing in both cases therefore D must cause e |
|
|
Joint method of agreement and difference |
Case1: A, B, C are present and e occurs Case2: A, B, D are present and e occurs Case3: B, C are present and e does not occur Case4: B, D are present and e does not occur e occurs when A is present and not when A is absent, therefore A is the cause of e |
|
|
Method of concomitant variation |
Varying a certain factor or condition and determining whether this change is accompanied by a change in some other factor |
|
|
Weaknesses of Differences |
Indefinite number of prior conditions and more than one factor will normally differ between the two |
|
|
Weaknesses of Agreement |
Indefinite number of prior conditions More than one factor will normally be present in all cases |
|
|
weaknesses of Joint method |
May help to mitigate the problems with the two methods to a certain extent But it does not avoid the problems completely` |
|
|
Role of background info in mill's methods |
Must be supplemented by background information as to what the general nature of the cause of an event will be This is in order to narrow down possible causal events |
